“Just ask them if they like being in last place,” Draper said Wednesday, a day after the Secretary of State announced his long-shot quest qualified for the ballot. “Last in quality of life. Last in education. Last in taxes. Last in infrastructure. Hard for the opposition to defend that record.”

While his critics may quibble with Draper’s definition of “last,” naysayers beware: His petition drive attracted more than 463,000 signatures from throughout the state to get the question before voters. And Shaun Bowler, a political science professor at the University of California Riverside and expert in California’s initiative process, sees parallels to the United Kingdom’s 2016 surprise public vote to leave the European Union.

“It’s easy enough to make a scapegoat about government,” Bowler said.

Bruce E. Cain, political science professor at Stanford University, is among many analysts who give the measure long odds.

“There’s not a huge amount of dissatisfaction, except among Republicans,” Cain said. “Why would Democrats go for that symbolic vote? They’re not really unhappy with the government right now because they control it.”

But the possibility that voters might feel ornery enough to vote for Draper’s split — if only to send a message to Sacramento — worries Steven Maviglio, the longtime Democratic adviser organizing the opposition.

“Our biggest challenge is getting people to take this seriously,” Maviglio said.

Draper says the proposal creates “an opportunity for everyone” to have a “clean slate” and start over with a “new government that’s focused on the future.”

So what happens if voters approve? The measure requires that the governor notify Congress on January 1, 2019, and request a vote on the proposed California split within 12 months of that date, according to an October analysis by the state Legislative Analyst Mac Taylor and Finance Director Michael Cohen.

Congress has only admitted four U.S. states that were split from an existing state: Kentucky, Maine, Vermont, and lastly West Virginia in 1863 during the Civil War. Shortly before the country itself almost split, the California Legislature in 1859 asked Congress to approve a separation that would have created a southern California state or territory, including Los Angeles and San Diego. But Congress, riven by divisions that would spark the Civil War, never acted on the request.

Expect similar congressional push-back in today’s politically divided Capitol. Creating two more Californias would add four more California members to the U.S. Senate, something those who already think California wields outsize influence would loathe. It also would leapfrog statehood dreams in Puerto Rico and other U.S. territories.

But … stay with us here … should Congress go along, the measure also would require the state Legislature to divide and transform the existing state into the three new states. If the Legislature fails to do so within 12 months of congressional approval to divide the state, the measure would automatically divide California’s debts among the three new states in proportion to their populations.

Existing state assets such as universities and prisons within the boundaries of each of the new states would then become assets of that new state. Each of the three new states would have to adopt a new constitution by convention or popular vote.

Dividing up the existing state’s infrastructure and bureaucracy would be a spirited legislative debate. The state report notes that California’s water system is “one of the most complex in the world” because water “does not naturally appear in California where demand is highest,” an ingredient for the state’s historic North vs. South water tug-of-wars. The new California state along the coast from the counties of Monterey to Los Angeles would be a net importer of water from the proposed Northern California and Southern California.

Assuming state lawmakers hash all this out, you still have the inevitable lawsuits. The state analysis notes that it’s been a long time since this issue last came up, and there are some uncertainties in the law.

Tim Draper. (Bay Area News Group archive photo)

How long would it take to resolve all this? Be patient. After West Virginia split from Virginia in 1863, court cases related to the states’ debts persisted for about 50 years, the state analysis said.

“While this measure anticipates action to divide California’s debts and secure congressional approval within two years after voter approval, it would be difficult for this timeline to be put into practice,” the state report concluded. “Some of the legal and practical issues of splitting up California suggest there is a high likelihood that the process would take many years to complete.”

It’s unclear how much public support there is for the idea. Draper’s campaign collected voter signatures in every county. The only recent public poll, an online survey of 1,100 California adults by Survey USA, found just 17 percent in support and 72 percent opposed.

But that same survey had little-known anti-Semite Patrick Little in second place for U.S. Senate at 18 percent behind incumbent Dianne Feinstein at 39 percent. Feinstein got more than 44 percent and Little just 1.3 percent in the June primary.

Social media was atwitter Wednesday with observers trying to hash out the proposal’s winners and losers. Some saw a scheme to dilute Democrat-dominated blue California’s electoral vote, others a Trojan horse that would only put more Democrats in the U.S. Senate.

According to an April analysis by Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia Center for Politics, the proposed new states — Northern California, California and Southern California — all voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Barack Obama in 2012.

But Draper notes that California’s fastest-growing voter affiliation are those like himself — claiming no party preference.

“I think people in California are not identifying with a given political party,” Draper said, “as much as a new way of thinking.”